September 25, 2025 • 27 mins
Award-winning Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah was sacked after posts she made about Charlie Kirk on social media sparked a storm of controversy. Her dismissal has become a flashpoint in the debate over free speech, newsroom policies, and the future of press freedom in America.In this episode of The Fourcast, Karen Attiah speaks to Cathy Newman, reflecting on the circumstances of her firing, the political pressures facing journalists, and why she believes her case is a test for how far opinion writers can go in today’s media climate.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
This isn't a time where we should be silent.
We need journalism. We need freedom of speech.
If you don't have the right to speak, all your other rights are
at risk. It was considered disrespectful,
you know, to not mourn for someone who thought the Civil
Rights Act was a mistake. This is Charlie Kirk's own
(00:20):
words. It's a it's a scary time.
The Washington Post said that your post was unacceptable.
It was gross misconduct. Were they justified in claiming
that you violated their social social media policy by
disparaging someone according tohis race?
I've left those posts up that everyone can judge for
themselves. Hello and welcome to the
(00:42):
Forecast. My guest today is at the centre
of a storm about journalistic freedom and free speech.
Karen Atia, an award-winning columnist at the Washington
Post, was fired earlier this month after post she made on
social media following the deathof right wing commentator
Charlie Kirk. In the days that followed, she
took to her sub stack to explainwhy she believes she was pushed
(01:03):
out. It sparked a debate about how
journalists should cover polarizing figures, the
boundaries of opinion writing and whether newsrooms are really
safe spaces for robust debate. Karen Atia, thank you very much
for joining me. I just want to look at the the
broader, the context. First, you were fired.
Then the MSNBC political analystMatthew Dowd, who also described
(01:27):
Charlie Kirk as a divisive figure.
He went Jimmy Kimmel, too, of course.
He's now been reinstated. I mean, our fears of a kind of
slide into autocracy or McCarthyism justified, do you
think? It definitely feels like we're
in this brink sort of moment or,or at the very least, if I'm
(01:47):
being generous about it, playingon the edge of having a Free
Press or not, right? And even before this moment, I
mean, we've been in a climate inAmerica where press freedom
rankings in America had actuallybeen slipping, where even under
the first Trump administration, we were seeing rhetoric coming
(02:11):
out of the White House about fake news.
We were seeing journalists beingattacked at political rallies,
these sort of things. So in some ways what we're
seeing now is a sort of a hyper focus on, you know, on on the
individual firings and things like that.
(02:31):
And obviously we'll get to that in my case.
But we have been operating in anenvironment where there have
been threats that have been increased lawsuits against media
outlets, right. So it's been, it's been several
years really of this slide when it comes to, you know, political
(02:53):
pressure on a journalistic houses not even speaking about,
you know, economic pressures that the journalism industry has
always, you know, had to deal with.
And and, you know, Jimmy Kimmel returned and got record ratings,
or at least the highest for a decade, I think it was.
What do you read into that? Is there a kind of public
outrage that's building? What?
What do you think of that? I mean, I think in general,
(03:16):
people, there's a certain effects that happens when, you
know, your authorities tell you can't do something or shouldn't
see something. And then, you know, you're able
to to sort of see there's a certain probably thrilled to be
able to, you know, see what Jimmy Kimmel would have said
about his situation. So I think there's that.
But I don't want to miss the fact that the president that
(03:38):
Trump still rails against ABC, it still threatens to sue them,
was not happy that Jimmy Kimmel was back on and expressed that.
So as much as you know, this seems like a bit of a victory,
this has not changed the fundamentals of the climate that
we're in. But does it show that media
(03:58):
owners are have found some courage and are prepared to sort
of face down the pressure from the Trump administration, the
fact that he's been reinstated? So many people threatened to
cancel their subscriptions. I mean, they were threatened by,
I don't know if it was courage or fear of losing money, right?
So on the merits of it all, he should never should have been
(04:19):
cancelled, you know, in the 1st place.
But obviously the threat that they were going to lose a lot of
subscriptions again during a very challenging media
environment time, at least to me, speaks that this was more
about economics than it was about courage.
Well, and of course you have notbeen rehired.
(04:41):
Do you think that suggests that women and women of colour are
held to a different standard? 1000% they are.
You know, obviously you know me and Jimmy Kimmel, I was not on
national television every night.You know, I'm not a famous multi
millionaire like like Jimmy Kimmel, right?
I was a print columnist. My work was behind pens and and
(05:05):
words and, and the Internet. So I I, you know, just in levels
of straight up fame, like I I wasn't it's it's different at
the same time. Yeah, you know, I think that
there's a my posts compared to what Jimmy Kimmel said.
We're very much in the line of me doing my job and I, I, I
(05:28):
think already, you know, alreadythere's a, there's a certain
thought that, you know, OK, women, black women crossing the
line and all of that. But I think it really still
though speaks to and and probably why people are still
following my cases is it's a litmus test case for journalism
in in America right now and particularly for opinion
(05:50):
journalism, at least as it's what's left of it in the
mainstream media. Right, well, let's look at
exactly why you did get fired and your Blue Sky post quoting
Charlie Kirk's remark that some prominent black women and I
quote, do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be
taken really seriously. You have to go steal a white
(06:12):
person's slot. That's what he said.
I mean, after all that has happened, how would you
characterise those remarks by Charlie Kirk now?
Yeah, so even those remarks and,you know, in actuality, he was
specifically talking about Supreme Court Justice Kachandi,
Ron Jackson, Joy Reid, Michelle Obama.
(06:34):
So he was specifically going after professional or or very,
you know, highly well known black women.
But he had generally had other comments and speaking about how
black women in particular calling it moronic and this
theme of questioning whether or not he should listen to them,
whether or not they deserve their spots, whether or not they
(06:56):
they were DEI. This was a common sort of
characterization that he had of of black women.
But in actuality, that is not the reason that the Post gave
for why I was fired, even thoughthat's what the narrative was,
that's not actually true. What the Post cited as my quote
(07:18):
UN quote gross misconduct was talking about white men and
political violence in America. And for me, you know, talking
specifically about the rhetoric that we have, the empty cliches,
the this is not who we are. That is actually what the
(07:38):
majority of my blue sky commentswere about.
Very sort of matter of fact commentary.
Let me let me come back to the let me come back to the post
reasons for dismissing you as they set it out.
But I, I just want to the fact that you got this e-mail setting
out the reasons for your job, you know, being you're being
(08:00):
sacked. What?
What do you think when you got that e-mail?
Right. I got an e-mail without even a
conversation. I mean, I guess to put
everything in context, you know,I've been at the Post for 11
years. I actually spent on the majority
of my time at the Post as an editor, as a building platforms
for other writers to be able to speak.
(08:21):
Probably the most notable of those writers was Jamal
Khashukshi, who was murdered in 2018.
So I think just for as on a personal sort of professional
level, you know, after having eleven years built these
platforms, won all these award cards, done so much for for
journalism and and for the Washington Post to be fired.
(08:44):
Like I never even really belonged.
There was I can't lie, I was painful and and confusing.
I was. So they didn't.
Even attempt attempt to call you.
There is one missed call I had and then two minutes later
e-mail with a subject line notice of termination and that
was it. The Washington Post said that
(09:05):
your post was unacceptable. It was gross misconduct.
You showed poor judgement and endangered the physical safety
of colleagues. I mean, were they justified in
claiming that you violated theirsocial media policy by not being
respectful or or by disparaging someone according to his race?
(09:25):
Absolutely not. I mean, it's, it's almost absurd
and laughable the you know, the,the charges they're trying to
level against me and in the, in the letter, I mean so much.
So that's why, you know, I've left those posts up that
everyone can judge for themselves.
For me, again, my commentary andmy training as as a journalist
(09:46):
is particularly when there's a highly emotional events,
particularly when there's violent events that happen, is
to exercise caution and restraint.
So my commentary is very much limited to talking about America
generally and our gun violence problem generally.
Again, remember, it was not justCharlie Kirk shooting that
(10:09):
happened that day. There was also shooting and
killing of children in Colorado just a couple weeks before that.
The CDC, the Center for Disease Control had been shot up
hundreds of times a couple months.
There was the assassinations of Democratic lawmakers or
shootings in so there. So I was taking the totality of
(10:30):
that and also reminding America,I suppose, and just noting that
white men had been the perpetrators of all of these
shootings and. Those shootings, Yeah, in in in
a political context. I suppose what the post was
concerned about was your post onBlue Sky talking about refusing
to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative
(10:53):
mourning for a white man that espoused violence.
I mean, in that moment where it was a very febrile atmosphere,
wasn't it? There was a lot of distress on
on different sides of the political spectrum.
You know, Jimmy Kimmel, for example, has acknowledged that
his intervention was ill timed. Do you, standing back now, in
(11:14):
retrospect, think, well, maybe the time wasn't right to make
that kind of comment? Yeah, the comment that you read
wasn't even the full comment. The comment was refusing to tear
my clothes. And again, it's the performative
aspect of it. Smear ashes in my face and mourn
(11:34):
someone who disparaged black women, marginalized people.
I said the full quote is refusing to do that is not the
same as violence or condoning violence.
I actually was responding to someone who said that I was not
sufficiently giving enough spaceto curt and demanding almost
(11:55):
that I perform a certain script or something and accusing me of
that being the same as violence.So I said refusing to perform
these scripts is not the same thing as being violent.
And talking about performing your journalistic duty, do you,
are you clear in your mind that it was your duty to make those
(12:16):
comments rather than something more measured, more impartial?
I mean, if you had your time over you would make the same
post, would you? I think overall, you know, it's
like as a journalist, right, understanding, I mean, I think
even the sort of questioning is still kind of with a
(12:37):
presupposition or supposing thata certain side's feelings is
more important than another side's feelings, right?
For plenty of people, yes, Charlie Kirk was a very
important figure, was a Christian leader to a lot of
people. To a lot of people, including
people that I know very personally.
He put them on watch lists that put their lives in danger.
(13:00):
He said the Civil Rights Act wasa mistake.
He said that he wondered if he could trust being on a plane
with a black pilot, Right. So for me to overly perform for
a man and ignore, you know, the feelings of those people that he
(13:20):
had literally put their lives indanger and victimized, that
would not have been journalistically responsible of
me either. It only would have been
journalistically responsible if we say that those people and
what they think would been targeted by this man do not
matter. And I was just not going to do
that. And so going back to my initial
(13:40):
question about his remark about black women, prominent black
women not having the brain processing power to be taken
seriously, how do you view thoseremarks now the same way you did
then it would just tell us what you think about those remarks.
Yeah, you know, it's just it's this is the this is what this
person viewed as supposedly acceptable civil debate is to
(14:04):
insult and demean groups of people, right.
I mean, I haven't changed how I think about those remarks then
or how I think about them now, except for in the case of my
firing, you know, and and the post termination letter
references me sort of disparaging or just respecting
(14:25):
Kurt. And again, all of my posts, I
said violence was wrong. I said political violence was
wrong. I said that this murder was
wrong. I was shocked when this
happened. And you can see me saying wow,
Oh my gosh. And you were making this broader
point about the normalisation ofgun violence in America.
You've said America is is sick. Do you think that part of the
sickness is this appetite for political violence on both left
(14:48):
and right? I mean, you know, the, the, the
vice president, JD Vance has erroneously said that it's a
bigger problem on the left. But do you think there is a
problem across the political spectrum here?
Yeah, let's look at this objectively.
It is just objectively true thatpolitical violence, if you count
political violence as, you know,gun crime, actual sort of
(15:11):
physical violence, that the there's a bigger problem on the
right. Those are just facts.
So much so whether or not, you know, the administration wants
us to know those facts as evidenced by the the instance
that they have ordered the Department of Justice to scrub
their own research about right wing domestic extremist violence
(15:37):
being predominantly right wing. We there is just it's just the
fact that there is an asymmetry.You know, as much as right, the
right has been trying to find sort of leftist, you know,
amorphous motives or something in the atmosphere or maybe, you
know, even Tyler Robinson, you know, might have had some idea
(15:59):
theology, all of these things. The facts have been that over
the decades it has been right wing white supremacist terrorism
that has been the number one domestic threat to the UN United
States. And that is just the facts.
I wonder whether one of the reasons for your firing was this
broader context of the Washington Post under its owner
(16:22):
Jeff Bezos, shifting the opinionpages to, and I quote,
advocating for free markets and personal liberties.
I will say at least, you know, obviously personally, the
Washington Post that fired me isnot the Washington Post that I
joined 11 years ago. This is not the same place as
the one that stood behind me andJamal Khashoggi when we were
(16:45):
advocating for press freedom andwhen we were advocating and when
we were building sections full of diverse writers across the
political spectrum, across the cultural spectrum.
That was The Washington Post that I knew and that I loved and
that I felt was an honor and a privilege and a pleasure to be a
(17:06):
part of. We're seeing an A narrowing, a
more insular sort of society in general.
And, you know, we're seeing morecensorship, I suppose.
And so now today, yeah, you know, obviously the posts that
fired me without cause, without conversation, without even, you
(17:27):
know, a fear hearing is not the post that I joined.
And that was under Bezos. I joined under Bezos.
So I've never, but he and the paper have.
And do you think, is there a legitimate argument that The
Washington Post had to shift because half the country voted
for Trump? And, you know, there's this
(17:48):
criticism that both Washington Post and The New York Times were
kind of elite bubbles. They needed to represent the
country better. What do you say to that?
I think this idea of representation is interesting
given the fact that I was the last black staff columnist in
the opinion section. Meaning in a city that is almost
(18:12):
majority black or has been majority black for its entire
existence now to have absolutelyno black opinion writers of
either political persuasion, right is more of the acute
representational emergency rightnow, right?
(18:34):
What's at stake there? I mean, it is astonishing that
you were the last staff black staff opinion writer.
Right. Well, it seems that they did not
care about that. And in a city where they're
literal National Guard troops marching around the city,
(18:57):
there's a feeling of the city being occupied.
There's a, an actual sort of Supreme Court ruling saying that
it's OK to racially profile black and brown people, right?
And, and now the Washington Posthas taken out its entire line of
full time black opinion writers who have the freedom and who
(19:19):
have the latitude, who have the leeway, even under the social
media policy to be able to advocate, to be able to say
something that is happening is wrong, to be able to speak about
the harms to the community. The fact that that sort of
journalistic line of defense hasbeen taken out at the Washington
Post means that the communities here are even more at risk
(19:40):
because of that. And what?
What does that say about Americaand the kind of power structures
in America today? We are definitely moving into
and I teach on, on race and and media and history.
We're moving into a time that seems to more resemble the 1920s
(20:02):
than it does anything else. Back to a time when there was or
even you know, the early 1900s where you know, Woodrow Wilson
was re segregating the workforcewhen there had been advancements
of for a black people and brown people and getting employment,
getting education, then seeing. The progress being wiped out,
(20:25):
right? We're seeing this staggering
numbers of, of particularly black employees, but employees
leaving the federal workforce. We're seeing rollbacks on
affirmative action. We're seeing definitely this
sort of almost explicitly kind of racist regime here.
(20:47):
And this is all while, you know,that the government is is pretty
much fully under Republican control.
And it's a it's a scary time. I mean, what, what can I say?
It's, it's a it's a scary time. It's a, it's a tragic time for
all of those generations that worked so hard for civil rights
progress. I mean, again, the idea that it
(21:09):
was considered for me disrespectful, you know, to not
mourn over the top properly for someone who thought the Civil
Rights Act was a mistake. This is Charlie Kirk's own
words. The fact that he's perhaps
representing a large swath of America who believe people like
me should not have the right to vote and participate in public
(21:31):
life is where we're at in 2025. I know you're pursuing A
grievance against the Post. Does does that mean that you
take them to court? You're suing them.
What that means is that very specifically is we've requested,
requesting information from the POST specific to my firing and
requesting, you know, basically under the Labour agreement, the
(21:54):
manner in which I was fired and you know, that I did not
actually violate the social media policy.
And this is what we are. We are basically challenging
them right now with my colleagues in the guilds.
Just reflecting back on what yousaid about the fact that you
were the last remaining black full time opinion columnist on
(22:17):
the paper, do you feel in America at the moment that women
on the left, women of colour, are fearful?
Yeah, for sure, because it's notjust, you know, it's not just me
as a black person, but you know,also in terms of, you know,
women also losing their jobs, also losing their positions and,
and things like that. We're dealing with a political
(22:41):
culture on the right that has openly said that they believe
women should be submissive and and should belong back basically
in the in the kitchen, right? We're seeing attacks on women's
ability to have autonomy over their reproductive choices,
right? So yeah, there's definitely also
(23:02):
a feeling of precariousness if you're a woman, and especially
if you're a woman of colour for sure.
And have you had threats to yourown safety since your dismissal
from the post? I have, I've had to up my own
security, you know, and it's, you know, for everything that
(23:28):
the Post is saying about me endangering supposedly the
security of of their staff, theysaid that without evidence.
I'm the one who's getting threats about people offering to
pay assassins basically to come after me.
So you know what they did actually puts my physical safety
in danger. Is this online threats people
(23:50):
specifically making that threat online?
Threats, things like that. I mean, are you nervous talking
to me now? Because you know, you, you've
sort of put yourself out there, you're not going to back down.
You're fighting the post. Do you feel nervous about about
speaking out? I mean, I understand.
I understand that this is a different climate, but I also
(24:12):
understand how important it is for me to still speak out.
I mean, there's this Zora Neale Hurston quote.
You know, if you're silent aboutyour pain, they'll kill you and
say you enjoyed it. So there's that on a personal
level. And then on a broader level, I
know it's important. There are so many people with,
who are, have lesser profiles than I do or who aren't as known
(24:34):
perhaps who are perhaps facing similar battles.
And I, I think for me, you know,courage is contagious.
I, I wanna, I, I, this isn't a time where we should be silent.
We need journalism. We need freedom of speech, and
it's only freedom of speech if you continue to use it, if you
(24:54):
continue to exercise it. Don't silence yourself ahead of
time. I suppose so.
I know how I guess I know how important it is for people to,
to see me do this to, to fight back and to not accept this,
particularly as I, this wasn't, I didn't deserve sort of what
happened to me at The WashingtonPost.
(25:16):
I spent my entire career having the backs of other writers.
I spent my entire career, you know, I believe deeply in how
important it is to have journalism and, you know, for
people to be informed, for people to speak, for people to
even reflect on their own culture, their own society.
(25:38):
I'm an American. Like, I should be able to speak
about what I think about my own society.
All right? I don't understand why that
should be seen as a threat. I guess.
Yes, I know history, you know, and it always has been a threat.
But for me, this is just a fundamental, basic human right.
And I I believe that if you don't have the right to speak,
(26:00):
all your other rights are at risk.
So as well as doing interviews like this, how will you be
ensuring that your voice is now heard?
Well, people can find me on social media, obviously.
Yeah. And I'll be writing on sub
stack. My sub stack is called the
Golden Hour. I also teach a class on race and
(26:22):
media since it seems that there's so much attack on
speaking about race and media and, you know, international
affairs. So I teach an online course
called Race and Media and International Affairs, which I
will start in a few weeks. Yeah.
So I'll be writing on sub stack on the Golden Hour and I'm in my
rogue radical professor era, I suppose with Resistance study
(26:44):
series. So I'll be writing and teaching
anyway. Karen Atia, thank you very much.
Thank you so much for having me.That's it for the forecast this
week, but thank you very much for joining us.
This isn't a time where we should be silent.
We need journalism. We need freedom of speech.
If you don't have the right to speak, all your other rights are
at risk. It was considered disrespectful,
you know, to not mourn for someone who thought the Civil
Rights Act was a mistake. This is Charlie Kirk's own
(00:20):
words. It's a it's a scary time.
The Washington Post said that your post was unacceptable.
It was gross misconduct. Were they justified in claiming
that you violated their social social media policy by
disparaging someone according tohis race?
I've left those posts up that everyone can judge for
themselves. Hello and welcome to the
(00:42):
Forecast. My guest today is at the centre
of a storm about journalistic freedom and free speech.
Karen Atia, an award-winning columnist at the Washington
Post, was fired earlier this month after post she made on
social media following the deathof right wing commentator
Charlie Kirk. In the days that followed, she
took to her sub stack to explainwhy she believes she was pushed
(01:03):
out. It sparked a debate about how
journalists should cover polarizing figures, the
boundaries of opinion writing and whether newsrooms are really
safe spaces for robust debate. Karen Atia, thank you very much
for joining me. I just want to look at the the
broader, the context. First, you were fired.
Then the MSNBC political analystMatthew Dowd, who also described
(01:27):
Charlie Kirk as a divisive figure.
He went Jimmy Kimmel, too, of course.
He's now been reinstated. I mean, our fears of a kind of
slide into autocracy or McCarthyism justified, do you
think? It definitely feels like we're
in this brink sort of moment or,or at the very least, if I'm
(01:47):
being generous about it, playingon the edge of having a Free
Press or not, right? And even before this moment, I
mean, we've been in a climate inAmerica where press freedom
rankings in America had actuallybeen slipping, where even under
the first Trump administration, we were seeing rhetoric coming
(02:11):
out of the White House about fake news.
We were seeing journalists beingattacked at political rallies,
these sort of things. So in some ways what we're
seeing now is a sort of a hyper focus on, you know, on on the
individual firings and things like that.
(02:31):
And obviously we'll get to that in my case.
But we have been operating in anenvironment where there have
been threats that have been increased lawsuits against media
outlets, right. So it's been, it's been several
years really of this slide when it comes to, you know, political
(02:53):
pressure on a journalistic houses not even speaking about,
you know, economic pressures that the journalism industry has
always, you know, had to deal with.
And and, you know, Jimmy Kimmel returned and got record ratings,
or at least the highest for a decade, I think it was.
What do you read into that? Is there a kind of public
outrage that's building? What?
What do you think of that? I mean, I think in general,
(03:16):
people, there's a certain effects that happens when, you
know, your authorities tell you can't do something or shouldn't
see something. And then, you know, you're able
to to sort of see there's a certain probably thrilled to be
able to, you know, see what Jimmy Kimmel would have said
about his situation. So I think there's that.
But I don't want to miss the fact that the president that
(03:38):
Trump still rails against ABC, it still threatens to sue them,
was not happy that Jimmy Kimmel was back on and expressed that.
So as much as you know, this seems like a bit of a victory,
this has not changed the fundamentals of the climate that
we're in. But does it show that media
(03:58):
owners are have found some courage and are prepared to sort
of face down the pressure from the Trump administration, the
fact that he's been reinstated? So many people threatened to
cancel their subscriptions. I mean, they were threatened by,
I don't know if it was courage or fear of losing money, right?
So on the merits of it all, he should never should have been
(04:19):
cancelled, you know, in the 1st place.
But obviously the threat that they were going to lose a lot of
subscriptions again during a very challenging media
environment time, at least to me, speaks that this was more
about economics than it was about courage.
Well, and of course you have notbeen rehired.
(04:41):
Do you think that suggests that women and women of colour are
held to a different standard? 1000% they are.
You know, obviously you know me and Jimmy Kimmel, I was not on
national television every night.You know, I'm not a famous multi
millionaire like like Jimmy Kimmel, right?
I was a print columnist. My work was behind pens and and
(05:05):
words and, and the Internet. So I I, you know, just in levels
of straight up fame, like I I wasn't it's it's different at
the same time. Yeah, you know, I think that
there's a my posts compared to what Jimmy Kimmel said.
We're very much in the line of me doing my job and I, I, I
(05:28):
think already, you know, alreadythere's a, there's a certain
thought that, you know, OK, women, black women crossing the
line and all of that. But I think it really still
though speaks to and and probably why people are still
following my cases is it's a litmus test case for journalism
in in America right now and particularly for opinion
(05:50):
journalism, at least as it's what's left of it in the
mainstream media. Right, well, let's look at
exactly why you did get fired and your Blue Sky post quoting
Charlie Kirk's remark that some prominent black women and I
quote, do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be
taken really seriously. You have to go steal a white
(06:12):
person's slot. That's what he said.
I mean, after all that has happened, how would you
characterise those remarks by Charlie Kirk now?
Yeah, so even those remarks and,you know, in actuality, he was
specifically talking about Supreme Court Justice Kachandi,
Ron Jackson, Joy Reid, Michelle Obama.
(06:34):
So he was specifically going after professional or or very,
you know, highly well known black women.
But he had generally had other comments and speaking about how
black women in particular calling it moronic and this
theme of questioning whether or not he should listen to them,
whether or not they deserve their spots, whether or not they
(06:56):
they were DEI. This was a common sort of
characterization that he had of of black women.
But in actuality, that is not the reason that the Post gave
for why I was fired, even thoughthat's what the narrative was,
that's not actually true. What the Post cited as my quote
(07:18):
UN quote gross misconduct was talking about white men and
political violence in America. And for me, you know, talking
specifically about the rhetoric that we have, the empty cliches,
the this is not who we are. That is actually what the
(07:38):
majority of my blue sky commentswere about.
Very sort of matter of fact commentary.
Let me let me come back to the let me come back to the post
reasons for dismissing you as they set it out.
But I, I just want to the fact that you got this e-mail setting
out the reasons for your job, you know, being you're being
(08:00):
sacked. What?
What do you think when you got that e-mail?
Right. I got an e-mail without even a
conversation. I mean, I guess to put
everything in context, you know,I've been at the Post for 11
years. I actually spent on the majority
of my time at the Post as an editor, as a building platforms
for other writers to be able to speak.
(08:21):
Probably the most notable of those writers was Jamal
Khashukshi, who was murdered in 2018.
So I think just for as on a personal sort of professional
level, you know, after having eleven years built these
platforms, won all these award cards, done so much for for
journalism and and for the Washington Post to be fired.
(08:44):
Like I never even really belonged.
There was I can't lie, I was painful and and confusing.
I was. So they didn't.
Even attempt attempt to call you.
There is one missed call I had and then two minutes later
e-mail with a subject line notice of termination and that
was it. The Washington Post said that
(09:05):
your post was unacceptable. It was gross misconduct.
You showed poor judgement and endangered the physical safety
of colleagues. I mean, were they justified in
claiming that you violated theirsocial media policy by not being
respectful or or by disparaging someone according to his race?
(09:25):
Absolutely not. I mean, it's, it's almost absurd
and laughable the you know, the,the charges they're trying to
level against me and in the, in the letter, I mean so much.
So that's why, you know, I've left those posts up that
everyone can judge for themselves.
For me, again, my commentary andmy training as as a journalist
(09:46):
is particularly when there's a highly emotional events,
particularly when there's violent events that happen, is
to exercise caution and restraint.
So my commentary is very much limited to talking about America
generally and our gun violence problem generally.
Again, remember, it was not justCharlie Kirk shooting that
(10:09):
happened that day. There was also shooting and
killing of children in Colorado just a couple weeks before that.
The CDC, the Center for Disease Control had been shot up
hundreds of times a couple months.
There was the assassinations of Democratic lawmakers or
shootings in so there. So I was taking the totality of
(10:30):
that and also reminding America,I suppose, and just noting that
white men had been the perpetrators of all of these
shootings and. Those shootings, Yeah, in in in
a political context. I suppose what the post was
concerned about was your post onBlue Sky talking about refusing
to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative
(10:53):
mourning for a white man that espoused violence.
I mean, in that moment where it was a very febrile atmosphere,
wasn't it? There was a lot of distress on
on different sides of the political spectrum.
You know, Jimmy Kimmel, for example, has acknowledged that
his intervention was ill timed. Do you, standing back now, in
(11:14):
retrospect, think, well, maybe the time wasn't right to make
that kind of comment? Yeah, the comment that you read
wasn't even the full comment. The comment was refusing to tear
my clothes. And again, it's the performative
aspect of it. Smear ashes in my face and mourn
(11:34):
someone who disparaged black women, marginalized people.
I said the full quote is refusing to do that is not the
same as violence or condoning violence.
I actually was responding to someone who said that I was not
sufficiently giving enough spaceto curt and demanding almost
(11:55):
that I perform a certain script or something and accusing me of
that being the same as violence.So I said refusing to perform
these scripts is not the same thing as being violent.
And talking about performing your journalistic duty, do you,
are you clear in your mind that it was your duty to make those
(12:16):
comments rather than something more measured, more impartial?
I mean, if you had your time over you would make the same
post, would you? I think overall, you know, it's
like as a journalist, right, understanding, I mean, I think
even the sort of questioning is still kind of with a
(12:37):
presupposition or supposing thata certain side's feelings is
more important than another side's feelings, right?
For plenty of people, yes, Charlie Kirk was a very
important figure, was a Christian leader to a lot of
people. To a lot of people, including
people that I know very personally.
He put them on watch lists that put their lives in danger.
(13:00):
He said the Civil Rights Act wasa mistake.
He said that he wondered if he could trust being on a plane
with a black pilot, Right. So for me to overly perform for
a man and ignore, you know, the feelings of those people that he
(13:20):
had literally put their lives indanger and victimized, that
would not have been journalistically responsible of
me either. It only would have been
journalistically responsible if we say that those people and
what they think would been targeted by this man do not
matter. And I was just not going to do
that. And so going back to my initial
(13:40):
question about his remark about black women, prominent black
women not having the brain processing power to be taken
seriously, how do you view thoseremarks now the same way you did
then it would just tell us what you think about those remarks.
Yeah, you know, it's just it's this is the this is what this
person viewed as supposedly acceptable civil debate is to
(14:04):
insult and demean groups of people, right.
I mean, I haven't changed how I think about those remarks then
or how I think about them now, except for in the case of my
firing, you know, and and the post termination letter
references me sort of disparaging or just respecting
(14:25):
Kurt. And again, all of my posts, I
said violence was wrong. I said political violence was
wrong. I said that this murder was
wrong. I was shocked when this
happened. And you can see me saying wow,
Oh my gosh. And you were making this broader
point about the normalisation ofgun violence in America.
You've said America is is sick. Do you think that part of the
sickness is this appetite for political violence on both left
(14:48):
and right? I mean, you know, the, the, the
vice president, JD Vance has erroneously said that it's a
bigger problem on the left. But do you think there is a
problem across the political spectrum here?
Yeah, let's look at this objectively.
It is just objectively true thatpolitical violence, if you count
political violence as, you know,gun crime, actual sort of
(15:11):
physical violence, that the there's a bigger problem on the
right. Those are just facts.
So much so whether or not, you know, the administration wants
us to know those facts as evidenced by the the instance
that they have ordered the Department of Justice to scrub
their own research about right wing domestic extremist violence
(15:37):
being predominantly right wing. We there is just it's just the
fact that there is an asymmetry.You know, as much as right, the
right has been trying to find sort of leftist, you know,
amorphous motives or something in the atmosphere or maybe, you
know, even Tyler Robinson, you know, might have had some idea
(15:59):
theology, all of these things. The facts have been that over
the decades it has been right wing white supremacist terrorism
that has been the number one domestic threat to the UN United
States. And that is just the facts.
I wonder whether one of the reasons for your firing was this
broader context of the Washington Post under its owner
(16:22):
Jeff Bezos, shifting the opinionpages to, and I quote,
advocating for free markets and personal liberties.
I will say at least, you know, obviously personally, the
Washington Post that fired me isnot the Washington Post that I
joined 11 years ago. This is not the same place as
the one that stood behind me andJamal Khashoggi when we were
(16:45):
advocating for press freedom andwhen we were advocating and when
we were building sections full of diverse writers across the
political spectrum, across the cultural spectrum.
That was The Washington Post that I knew and that I loved and
that I felt was an honor and a privilege and a pleasure to be a
(17:06):
part of. We're seeing an A narrowing, a
more insular sort of society in general.
And, you know, we're seeing morecensorship, I suppose.
And so now today, yeah, you know, obviously the posts that
fired me without cause, without conversation, without even, you
(17:27):
know, a fear hearing is not the post that I joined.
And that was under Bezos. I joined under Bezos.
So I've never, but he and the paper have.
And do you think, is there a legitimate argument that The
Washington Post had to shift because half the country voted
for Trump? And, you know, there's this
(17:48):
criticism that both Washington Post and The New York Times were
kind of elite bubbles. They needed to represent the
country better. What do you say to that?
I think this idea of representation is interesting
given the fact that I was the last black staff columnist in
the opinion section. Meaning in a city that is almost
(18:12):
majority black or has been majority black for its entire
existence now to have absolutelyno black opinion writers of
either political persuasion, right is more of the acute
representational emergency rightnow, right?
(18:34):
What's at stake there? I mean, it is astonishing that
you were the last staff black staff opinion writer.
Right. Well, it seems that they did not
care about that. And in a city where they're
literal National Guard troops marching around the city,
(18:57):
there's a feeling of the city being occupied.
There's a, an actual sort of Supreme Court ruling saying that
it's OK to racially profile black and brown people, right?
And, and now the Washington Posthas taken out its entire line of
full time black opinion writers who have the freedom and who
(19:19):
have the latitude, who have the leeway, even under the social
media policy to be able to advocate, to be able to say
something that is happening is wrong, to be able to speak about
the harms to the community. The fact that that sort of
journalistic line of defense hasbeen taken out at the Washington
Post means that the communities here are even more at risk
(19:40):
because of that. And what?
What does that say about Americaand the kind of power structures
in America today? We are definitely moving into
and I teach on, on race and and media and history.
We're moving into a time that seems to more resemble the 1920s
(20:02):
than it does anything else. Back to a time when there was or
even you know, the early 1900s where you know, Woodrow Wilson
was re segregating the workforcewhen there had been advancements
of for a black people and brown people and getting employment,
getting education, then seeing. The progress being wiped out,
(20:25):
right? We're seeing this staggering
numbers of, of particularly black employees, but employees
leaving the federal workforce. We're seeing rollbacks on
affirmative action. We're seeing definitely this
sort of almost explicitly kind of racist regime here.
(20:47):
And this is all while, you know,that the government is is pretty
much fully under Republican control.
And it's a it's a scary time. I mean, what, what can I say?
It's, it's a it's a scary time. It's a, it's a tragic time for
all of those generations that worked so hard for civil rights
progress. I mean, again, the idea that it
(21:09):
was considered for me disrespectful, you know, to not
mourn over the top properly for someone who thought the Civil
Rights Act was a mistake. This is Charlie Kirk's own
words. The fact that he's perhaps
representing a large swath of America who believe people like
me should not have the right to vote and participate in public
(21:31):
life is where we're at in 2025. I know you're pursuing A
grievance against the Post. Does does that mean that you
take them to court? You're suing them.
What that means is that very specifically is we've requested,
requesting information from the POST specific to my firing and
requesting, you know, basically under the Labour agreement, the
(21:54):
manner in which I was fired and you know, that I did not
actually violate the social media policy.
And this is what we are. We are basically challenging
them right now with my colleagues in the guilds.
Just reflecting back on what yousaid about the fact that you
were the last remaining black full time opinion columnist on
(22:17):
the paper, do you feel in America at the moment that women
on the left, women of colour, are fearful?
Yeah, for sure, because it's notjust, you know, it's not just me
as a black person, but you know,also in terms of, you know,
women also losing their jobs, also losing their positions and,
and things like that. We're dealing with a political
(22:41):
culture on the right that has openly said that they believe
women should be submissive and and should belong back basically
in the in the kitchen, right? We're seeing attacks on women's
ability to have autonomy over their reproductive choices,
right? So yeah, there's definitely also
(23:02):
a feeling of precariousness if you're a woman, and especially
if you're a woman of colour for sure.
And have you had threats to yourown safety since your dismissal
from the post? I have, I've had to up my own
security, you know, and it's, you know, for everything that
(23:28):
the Post is saying about me endangering supposedly the
security of of their staff, theysaid that without evidence.
I'm the one who's getting threats about people offering to
pay assassins basically to come after me.
So you know what they did actually puts my physical safety
in danger. Is this online threats people
(23:50):
specifically making that threat online?
Threats, things like that. I mean, are you nervous talking
to me now? Because you know, you, you've
sort of put yourself out there, you're not going to back down.
You're fighting the post. Do you feel nervous about about
speaking out? I mean, I understand.
I understand that this is a different climate, but I also
(24:12):
understand how important it is for me to still speak out.
I mean, there's this Zora Neale Hurston quote.
You know, if you're silent aboutyour pain, they'll kill you and
say you enjoyed it. So there's that on a personal
level. And then on a broader level, I
know it's important. There are so many people with,
who are, have lesser profiles than I do or who aren't as known
(24:34):
perhaps who are perhaps facing similar battles.
And I, I think for me, you know,courage is contagious.
I, I wanna, I, I, this isn't a time where we should be silent.
We need journalism. We need freedom of speech, and
it's only freedom of speech if you continue to use it, if you
(24:54):
continue to exercise it. Don't silence yourself ahead of
time. I suppose so.
I know how I guess I know how important it is for people to,
to see me do this to, to fight back and to not accept this,
particularly as I, this wasn't, I didn't deserve sort of what
happened to me at The WashingtonPost.
(25:16):
I spent my entire career having the backs of other writers.
I spent my entire career, you know, I believe deeply in how
important it is to have journalism and, you know, for
people to be informed, for people to speak, for people to
even reflect on their own culture, their own society.
(25:38):
I'm an American. Like, I should be able to speak
about what I think about my own society.
All right? I don't understand why that
should be seen as a threat. I guess.
Yes, I know history, you know, and it always has been a threat.
But for me, this is just a fundamental, basic human right.
And I I believe that if you don't have the right to speak,
(26:00):
all your other rights are at risk.
So as well as doing interviews like this, how will you be
ensuring that your voice is now heard?
Well, people can find me on social media, obviously.
Yeah. And I'll be writing on sub
stack. My sub stack is called the
Golden Hour. I also teach a class on race and
(26:22):
media since it seems that there's so much attack on
speaking about race and media and, you know, international
affairs. So I teach an online course
called Race and Media and International Affairs, which I
will start in a few weeks. Yeah.
So I'll be writing on sub stack on the Golden Hour and I'm in my
rogue radical professor era, I suppose with Resistance study
(26:44):
series. So I'll be writing and teaching
anyway. Karen Atia, thank you very much.
Thank you so much for having me.That's it for the forecast this
week, but thank you very much for joining us.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.